May 2023: Survey on moving OP and CNECT to the new Mercier building
In the framework of the rehabilitation programme of the Gare district, the old Mercier building will be demolished, and OP has to move to another building. Since 2020, lots of effort have been put into the preparation, the staff had to accept the radical change of moving to openspace environment, and the management has carefully planned the distribution of the internal space among units. Out of the blue, however, OP and CNECT staff in Luxembourg have been recently informed about a unilateral OIL decision to move both OP and CNECT to the new Mercier building this summer.
Unfortunately, the new building can only host 743 staff, roughly 10% less than the total number of staff concerned, namely 836 OP and CNECT colleagues, which means that on the top of the disadvantageous openspace arrangement, hotdesking will also have to be introduced.
As no consultation of the two entities concerned took place, Union Syndicale Luxembourg decided to ask staff how they perceive the situation.
The survey was answered by 135 OP (20% of total OP staff) and 57 CNECT staff (32% of total CNECT staff, 1 respondent did not specify DG), out of which there were 112 female, 67 male colleagues and 4 people who did not specify their gender. As for their age, 9 respondents were below 35 years (5% of respondents), 34 staff between 35 and 44 years (18%), 116 between 45 and 54 years (60%), and 44 above, which is broadly representative of the overall age distribution of Commission staff. Regarding grades, 55 AD, 111 AST, 7 AST/SC, 9 CA, 10 TA and one EXT answered the survey, broadly representative of the distribution of staff among categories in OP and CNECT in Luxembourg.
To our question about how satisfied they are with the decision that DG CNECT colleagues will leave the EUFO building and join OP colleagues in the new MER building, only 17 people were fine or rather fine with this decision, while 141 colleagues (73% of respondents) expressed their disappointment.
As the new building will only have 129 parking spaces (1 place for 8 staff), 40% of the respondents declared that they have no other option to come to the office but by car. Usually, their problem is that they live in a remote part of the Grand Region, and public transport would need daily 2-4 hours. Others are unable to come to the office early enough as they have to take their children to creche or school. Now they are worried about finding a free parking place in the new building.
We also asked colleagues about their feeling of safety in the Gare district: results show that almost 40% of respondents have worries, with a strong skew towards CNECT colleagues, especially in wintertime when staff leaves in dark after work.
In their comments, many colleagues mentioned that the openspace environment is detrimental to performance, especially today when we have several calls and meetings a day. Moreover, with the sudden idea of moving CNECT to the new MER building, hotdesking must be introduced, which further diminishes the feeling of belonging to the Institution. Some even consider the application of this working environment as showing disrespect to or even humiliating staff. Many respondents mentioned that they can accept the idea of moving to smaller buildings if we can share desks in small offices, but openspace offices are considered the worst option.
Several colleagues found important to emphasise how disrespectful this OIL decision is towards OP staff that has been working on a fair and practical distribution of space for more than a year, and how incomprehensible this OIL decision for CNECT is: DG ENER stays alone in the Euroforum building where there would still be enough space for CNECT. Still they must move now to a building with less capacity than the staff moving in. The very limited number of parking spaces will make the situation even worse: CNECT staff can park their cars in the DRB or ARIANE building if they cannot find place in EUFO. Now in the new MER, there will only be 129 parking spaces for 836 people without any further option to park their cars for the day. Another crucial issue is the small number of meeting rooms, especially the lack of conference rooms that CNECT staff badly needs for their frequent meetings with stakeholders.
The lack of consultation with staff concerned and the way in which OIL communicated its decision are clearly perceived as ignorance towards staff. Now OP and CNECT colleagues are left alone to reallocate office space, establish a booking system for the parking area and elaborate smart ways how to accommodate to openspace and hotdesking in a building designed for less staff than hosted. OIL is pursuing a non-transparent and incomprehensible building policy, unnecessarily overcrowding a new building, the capacity and characteristics of which we have not yet experienced and tested. Further, OIL is ignoring possible health issues even though COVID is still an issue and several scientific research studies have proven the negative effects of the openspace working environment.
Back to the office: 2 days/week
From next Monday, with the new version of the teleworking guidelines applicable from 7 March, teleworking staff will be required to work in the office for 2 days a week. The Administration recognises that, on the one hand, contamination is still possible. On the other hand, it is of the opinion that if the measures are made more flexible in the MS of the sites where omicron is installed, on the basis of the data available / in the light of hospitalisations and the general impact of omicron, there is reason to return to the office more extensively.
As teleworking is still recommended in Belgium (although not ‘strongly’ recommended), we’re sticking to 3 days of teleworking.
Back to the office also for important meetings
Insofar as managers can call all their staff back to the office for important meetings, questions were asked as to whether we could ensure that managers plan their meetings well in advance. This would enable staff to take them into account, in the interests of greening, when planning their working days in the office in one of the Commission’s buildings.
Breakdown of the 2 days and attendance ceiling
The two days can also be split into 4 half-days. Attendance ceiling: 65% instead of 50%. Attendance will continue to be monitored in the buildings.
For those who are reluctant, no sanctions are planned for the time being, but rather support (staying in dialogue, reassurance through measures that are still in place such as distancing, wearing a mask).
Continuous TW for 3 days/week except for important meetings and acknowledged exceptions.
Teleworking abroad for urgent family reasons
There were 27 requests to telework abroad for “urgent family reasons” (criterion of the current tw guidelines). These 27 requests have also enabled us to gain a better understanding of the types of requests that could arise when the new decision on working time – hybrid working applies (“imperative family reasons” criterion). Under the new decision, staff with “imperative family reasons” outside the usual site will be able to telework for 1 month, renewable, to help family members who need support.
Canteens and cafeterias
The capacity of canteens and cafeterias providing meals and other supplies to staff can be increased as soon as more staff return to the office. Other canteens and cafeterias will open gradually.
Back to the office 1 day/week: from 21/2
To this end, a new version of the teleworking guidelines will be applied from next Monday. The new version of the “teleworking guidelines” is similar to the version of mid-November last year.
With regard to the developments in BE and LUX, compulsory presence of 1 day/week with a ceiling of 50%, with one day of compulsory presence in the office, plus obligation to participate in “important” meetings (DG HR will ensure that the “important” criterion is met, i.e. no meetings for nothing). For critical staff or staff with functions not suitable for telework, specific rules.
A communication from DG HR will follow as soon as possible.
In Belgium, the principle, based on the Royal Decree, of no more than one day’s presence in the office on a voluntary basis, will be replaced by “recommended telework” (not even “strongly recommended” according to Christian Roques).
The situation being understood by DG HR as a still numerous omikron case, but impact on health “sustainable”. DG HR intends to follow the Member State(s) of establishment in seeing no reason to maintain the same level of restriction.
There will be a gradual return to the office approach (although several DGs wish to go faster).
On the other hand, if absolutely necessary, we can come to the office. For example, for IT or badge problems, in which case the justification could be “personal obligations” (or “other individual obligations”).
Exceptions to the obligation to return to work: the same as up to now: in particular pregnant women and immuno-compromised persons.
When will 2 office days/week be the minimum?
The Commission will follow the Member State of implementation / LUX / BE to find out when it will be possible to return 2 days/week, which can be done as soon as the new decision “Working Time / Teleworking” is adopted [which the College hopes to adopt soon].
Change to self-declaration. There is a page on MyIntraComm where you can enter your covid positivity yourself. Heavy pathologies and non-vaccinated: to be followed with particular attention. The last 2 weeks 640 covid cases, previously 1000 cases, which implies caution.
TW from abroad in exceptional circumstances (outside the 10 days for all)
New version of the guidelines: in order to be able to telework abroad outside the basic 10 days, the exception related to travel restrictions has been removed (there would no longer be any).
But the new version of the teleworking guidelines allows teleworking abroad in exceptional circumstances, if there is an “URGENT NEED TO TAKE CARE OF FAMILY MEMBERS”. It will not be the line manager, but DG HR who assesses the requests. We asked how to understand the term “URGENT”, because in English this term can mean: persistent reason or urgency in time. Christian Rocques’ answer was that DG HR evaluates ad hoc.
Mission rules :
No change for the next 2 weeks.
Can open according to national rules.
Temperature check finished
We will stop because with Omicron no fever.
Ad pandemic preparedness
We are prepared to go back to stricter conditions if necessary, as omicron is not a simple cold but still a Covid virus.
HR is monitoring the 50% threshold of occupied offices. It is mandatory to register attendance. Teleworking continues to be recommended for the rest of the week
There were questions about the restaurant/cafeteria offer. Marc Becquet replied that he would do what he could, but that this would also depend on attendance.
Minutes of the December 10th Covid Info Meeting:
Cases at the Commission
Week from 29/11 to 3/12: 168 positive cases in Brussels, of which 4 close contact in the office, and 18 in Luxembourg. Last week: 130 cases.
Contaminations in the office since 20 September: 17 in total.
Deaths: recently, unfortunately, a colleague in Luxembourg died of covid. It is a contamination outside the office / outside of work. DG HR is assisting the widow/family with children as much as possible.
- by BCs (business correspondents, who receive info from unit heads);
- by emails sent, according to the application protocol, to the medical service;
- by PMO online: obligation to fill in if covid + where one has been contaminated.
The cases are being followed very closely for the people known to be at risk and their close contacts.
Covid pass / CST / 3G – 2G
- Luxembourg national law: from 15.01.2022, CST mandatory for access to work and canteens (3G access to work, 2G catering).
The Commission intends to follow Luxembourg national rules in what concerns access to work / canteens. However, it is still studying the provisions that will be voted on next week.
- Applicability of national law
The Commission is of the opinion that in the field of Health and Safety at Work (H&S):
– national law is applicable (but it must be legally transposed into our “internal” order by ad hoc decisions, to be able to apply it concretely “internally”),
– unless the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) does not allow it.
Thus, for everything that is not included in the PPI, the personnel are – after ad hoc transposition – subject to national law in H&S matters. Or in other words: the national law is followed mutatis mutandis (changing what needs to be changed: the PPI gives a margin of interpretation/additional protection, because as an institution we have a special responsibility).
According to this approach, the decisions of the Commission, such as those concerning the control of visitors and temperatures for the access to the buildings, will be adapted, if necessary, according to the Luxembourg law as of 15.01.2022.
- Work at the office, at the BRU / LUX
At the Commission, it will continue to be done on a voluntary basis, so there is no general obligation to return to work, at least not for the month of January, except for staff whose presence in the office is necessary / who cannot telework and staff whose presence is requested for reasons of business continuity.
Reimbursements for tests/sickness costs
Tests: national law will be followed: in principle no reimbursement foreseen. This could be different if medical certificate that vaccination not possible, or called to work for business continuity.
Sickness costs 100% reimbursement: it is up to the Medical Board to decide whether the long covid is to be defined as a serious illness. At present, we do not have the elements yet.
Teleworking guidelines / new working time decision
The teleworking guidelines have been updated, in particular with regard to the new rules in Belgium (tw with return to the office on a voluntary basis, a maximum of 1 day or 2 half-days per week). This is with the exception of critical/essential staff, or those who cannot telework or whose presence in the office is necessary to ensure business continuity: these staff members can be asked to come to the office at any time, unless they are vulnerable / see point 4.1(b) of the guidelines.
NB. these guidelines are likely to remain in force: the new Working Time / Telework decision may be suspended as soon as it is adopted, due to the pandemic.
Safety measures / masks
There have been a few cases of refusal to take a temperature and refusal to wear a mask, which we should look into more closely. In any case, the principle remains that if the basic rules are not respected, there may be sanctions.
Moreover, failure to comply with the obligations would render any plea null and void in advance, if ever covid is caught unquestionably in the office, that it is an occupational disease if you have the long covid afterwards.
The type of mask provided remains the surgical mask. Although FFP2 masks would in themselves protect a little better, in practice these would make it so hard to breathe that they would be likely to be removed (more quickly). Exception: aeroplane missions: FFP2 is arguably more protective given the dry, recirculated air environment. The importance of (enforcing) compliance was again mentioned.
The question has been asked again whether it is still advisable to remove the mask when sitting in the office. This is especially true in open spaces and shared offices. The question was raised whether open spaces should not be reconsidered. In this context, our representatives mentioned a study by the Max Planck Institute https://www.mpg.de/17916867/coronavirus-masks-risk-protection.
The Administration reiterated that ventilation is dispensed in accordance with the legal standards in Belgium and Luxembourg, and in Belgium in accordance with the Belgian covid recommendations (which in fact do not always envisage more fresh air than in Luxembourg, as these recommendations contain a condition (“as far as possible”) and a threshold (“ventilation above a threshold of 900 particles per million of CO2).
In relation to the recent message from DG HR that the 10 days of tw abroad can also be taken, until 15 January 2022, directly after Christmas/New Year’s holidays: staff representatives expressed that a more timely message would have allowed better planning of holidays around Christmas.
NB. future plans are to remain at 10 days tw from abroad per year. Any link to annual leave days may be dropped.
In the Member States, we see reimbursements around 20-30 euro/month. In comparison, the Commissions package is generous according to the Administration (it would amount to a value of 300-350 euros). However, the guidelines provide for an additional charge as long as the budget is available.
Our representatives mentioned a recent German judgement: a person getting out of bed to return to his computer to work, breaks his back / has an accident. This accident was considered a home-work accident. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/09/fall-on-walk-from-bed-to-desk-is-workplace-accident-german-court-rules.
Return to office and teleworking scheme
Since the “rentrée”, several EU institutions as well as the EIB encourage and/or oblige their staff to return to the office. In certain cases, this is obligatory – for part of the week; in other cases (Court of Justice), return remains on a voluntary basis.
These different approaches result in the following scheme:
|Mandatory days in office / week
|Mandatory days in home working / week
|Flexible days / week
|Teleworking from abroad
|10 days / year
|No expatriation allowance and 75% part-time
|Court of Justice
|European Court of Auditors
|5 days / month
|European Investment Bank
|Up to 100 days / year if “regular teleworking”
USL believes that these divergencies should be aligned, and further to your many questions with regard to a safe return to the office in what is still a pandemic context, we have asked to align these different approaches. Surely within the framework of consultations between the respective medical services it must be possible to find one single approach, both for a possible return to the office as for provisions to telework abroad.
USL also has asked to stay vigilant with regard to the “ideal worker syndrome”, that is, occupational health risks stemming from managerial expectations that staff can be permanently connected, never be sick and perpetually available for work.
A “New Normal” policy thus requires a sound Social Dialogue, especially on the various effects new working practices may trigger on our daily lives, but also on, inter alia, what adequate infrastructure Staff needs to be provided with at home, how additionally incurred utility costs will be repaid, and how the definition of occupational accidents can be meaningfully expanded.
Hybrid working in the future / office space distribution
Further to the pandemic and its corollary of teleworking for many of us, the Commission is moving full speed ahead to new ways of working. Above all, this will include hybrid working, thus both teleworking – dependent upon line manager approval – and working in the office – potentially in new office space constellations. Since decisions in this regard are being taken at a corporate level, developments are relevant for all Commission sites, including Luxembourg.
With regard to telework, USL believes as you do in its usefulness to allow for a better work-life balance. At the same time, we believe that a full return to the office should remain, for those who chose, a possibility. For those who want to telework, USL believes that teleworking should be possible by default if compatible with the interest of the service.
With regard to office space distribution, USL understands that more telework and the Administration’s never-ending search for “economies” will lead the latter into looking to reducing office-building surfaces. In this respect, we strongly believe that the job profile / the type of work should dictate the distribution of office space, and not the other way round.
This is in line with the principles of the Communication “The Workplace of the Future in the European Commission” (C(2019) 7450 final) of October 16, 2019:
- “The choice of bricks and bytes should support the desired changes in behaviours and not the other way round.” (Principle 1)
- “A one-size-fits-all office set-up is not suitable in the Commission’s highly diverse context. Various office arrangements should be available to match the demands of different types of work performed by Commission staff.” (Principle 6).
In Brussels, over 2000 colleagues are moving into open space and flex desking (Loi 107 and Copernicus buildings). In the Luxembourg Drosbach building, a DIGIT flex desking pilot (32 external service providers) took place, as well as a recent change of 5 floors towards open space (mainly for DIGIT teams of externals and statutory staff). Furthermore, the Publications Office will be moving into similar office constellations in Mercier 2. As far as JMO 2 is concerned, there seem to be no concrete plans at present to change the finalized space distribution designs. However, OIL has confirmed that it is following all developments at a corporate level closely.
With regard to health and safety, OIL applies Luxembourgish legal norms. These being few in terms of office space distribution, it may apply norms of neighbouring countries. In the framework of the Committee on Health and Safety in Luxembourg (CSHT Lux), we plead for more clarity on norms and at least alignment with Belgian legal provisions, ranging from down to the ground issues as your type of desk to questions of ventilation.
Further line of action
USL will continue to defend an adequate workspace according to the above mentioned principles and plead that what has been decided for the JMO 2 with regard to office space distribution cannot be reversed if it leads to less adequate conditions. At the same time USL contributes in committees like the CSHT Luxembourg to ensuring that all relevant questions are asked and alternatives are considered.
An unprecedented response to an unprecedented crisis: The European Commission’s fight against COVID-19
It happened quickly, almost suddenly. On 31December 2019, WHO’s Country Office in the People’s Republic of China learned about a ‘viral pneumonia’ in Wuhan. By 11 March 2020, the WHO had declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.
- The first case in the EU was discovered in Italy on 21 February 2020. The public health department of the European Commission’s General Directorate for Health and Food Safety – based in Luxembourg – went on high alert and began convening meetings with the Health Security Council, which normally holds its meetings at the Chateau de Senningen, made possible by the Luxembourg government. The Commission’s public health department was also in constant contact with Member States and with the Commission’s partners, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the European Medicines Agency. Virtual meetings became a daily- and often nightly – norm as experts grappled with the origins, the transmission route, the symptoms and the protocol for the prevention and treatment of this new form of coronavirus.
- Although COVID-19 seemed to have taken the world by surprise, the situation would have been dramatically worse if the EU had not already had legislation and tools in place for monitoring, supervising and responding to cross-border situations. While national governments are responsible for their own health measures, the EU coordinates the response to cross-border health threats and can mobilise EU-level instruments of direct support to Member States.
As well as having a crisis management, preparedness and response team at the ready, the Commission had experience dealing with epidemics like SARS and Ebola, and pandemics like the H1N1 influenza (bird flu), which strengthened our preparedness. It was the 2009 bird flu pandemic, for example, that showed us the need to negotiate as a bloc with pharmaceutical companies for vaccines and medicines. Having the Joint Procurement Agreement in place was a literally a life-saver when COVID-19 struck. Early on in the pandemic, countries that had not yet signed quickly saw that there was strength in numbers: by April 2020, 37 countries, including all EU and EEA countries, had signed the agreement.
Immediately, the Joint Procurement Agreement was used to purchase personal protective equipment, ventilators and intensive care medicines and the Commission began discussions with pharmaceutical companies about developing vaccines. Extremely fortuitous was that one year earlier, in March 2019, the Commission had set up framework contracts with Member States for the production and supply of pandemic influenza vaccines for half the European population.
Other EU activities are constantly ongoing to safeguard the EU from dangerous pathogens. Labs across the EU analyse potentially dangerous viruses and bacteria, partly through EU-funding, and they conduct tests of their identification capabilities and alert systems. Experts at entry ports, food, plant and animal experts also keep watch to prevent dangerous viral and bacterial materials from gaining hold on EU territory. Member States and the Commission share information about cross-border threats, and the Commission’s independent Scientific Committee on New and Emerging Health Risks is on constant stand-by to provide risk assessments. Additionally, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control monitors all infectious diseases that may pose a threat to EU citizens, including West Nile virus infection, Dengue Fever, tuberculosis and other public health risks.
Having these tools and experiences is like having a fire station, equipped and manned by trained firefighters. But COVID-19 has been a rampant wildfire. It was in some ways an unknown entity and required our learning on the job. One certainty was that our response had to be a team effort, involving Member States, different European Commission services and global partners. At the European Commission, our ‘Health in All Policies’ approach was put into practice as we collaborated with transport authorities to get medical supplies and health workers across closed borders using designated ‘Green Lanes’, worked with Research and Development to look for vaccines and treatments and collaborated with Member States to mitigate the socio-economic impact of COVID-19.
While responding to the immediate crisis- including by promoting wide-scale testing, social distancing, hand hygiene and the wearing of masks – we were looking ahead for a way out of it. Vaccination seemed the surest path. Early on, many people doubted that effective vaccines could be developed and distributed quickly – it was a Herculean task. European Commission President Von der Leyen led the Coronavirus Global Response pledging event on 4 May 2020, which registered €7.4 billion in pledges from donors worldwide, including a pledge of €1.4 billion by the Commission. The Global Goal: Unite For Our Future’ campaign launched by the Commission and the international advocacy organisation Global Citizen helped rally support and raise hope, and the EU reiterated its support of the worldwide initiative COVAX at the 4 June 2020 Global Vaccine Summit. Directed by Gavi the Vaccine Alliance, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, and the World Health Organization, COVAX aims to make COVID-19 vaccines equally accessible to all.
By June 2020, the Commission had put together our Vaccine Strategy, which encouraged EU research and production of vaccines, and stressed the importance of stringent tests for safety and efficacy conducted by the European Medicines Agency.
It was decided that the EU should negotiate with producers of potential vaccines to support their research and manufacture, and to reserve quantities in case they would be approved on the EU market. It was also agreed that EU member states should not buy the same vaccines in parallel and that each Member State should pay themselves for the vaccines delivered on a pro rata basis.
Negotiations initially began with six companies, and to date, four vaccines have been approved by the Commission’s partner, the European Medicines Agency. By the end of the year, vaccines began rolling out in the European Union, and the goal of inviting all EU citizens for vaccination by the 2021 summer holiday period is still within reach. This remarkable feat has been achieved with no shortcuts on safety requirements and with the Commission’s guidance for vaccination roll-out, targeting the most vulnerable groups first. The EU also stood fast in its insistence that the pharmaceutical companies themselves be held financially responsible for any adverse effects, which was not the case everywhere, but which provides added security.
This enormous effort is paying off. The spread of COVID-19 has dwindled in countries where there has been significant vaccine uptake, proving without a doubt that vaccination works. That said, we are still exploring the need and timing for boosters and modifications to protect against emerging variants, and therapeutics are also still needed to treat acute and severe cases. To date, only one therapeutic has been approved of the 57 therapeutics the European Medicines Agency has advised on, but a total of 70 joint procurement contracts for therapeutics have been successfully negotiated and a new Therapeutics Strategy has been launched.
If there is a silver lining to be found in all of this, it is that the world has woken up to the fact that our societies, our economies and our future depends on good health. And we are looking at new ways of doing things.
The EU is proposing reinforcing legislation and has already vastly increased its spending and investment in health. The EU4 Health programme has been granted its largest budget to date, a total of 5.1 billion over 7 years. EU Research has been granted a budget of 7.7 Billion over the same timeframe, and the biggest investment of them all, the EU Recovery package, has been endowed with a budget of 750 billion.
Indicative of this shift toward prioritizing health, a G20 Summit on Health was organised for the very first time on 21 May, co-hosted by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi as G20 chair. Global leaders at the event committed to a series of actions to accelerate the end of the COVID-19 crisis and better prepare for future pandemics.
The G20 underlined the importance of increased and diversified manufacturing and recognised the role of intellectual property in ensuring equity, both through voluntary licensing and knowledge transfer. All G20 members also acknowledged the need for the funding of the ACT-Accelerator, a global collaboration to accelerate the development, production, and equitable access to COVID-19 tests, treatments, and vaccines, which was launched by the the European Commission, the WHO, France and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The leaders also agreed on the need for inoperable early warning information, surveillance and trigger systems, which would cover new viruses and variants. The aim is to detect risks much quicker and end outbreaks before they become pandemics.
The Commission is working with vaccine producers in Europe, to make vaccine doses for low and middle-income countries readily available. BioNTech/Pfizer (1 billion), Johnson & Johnson (200 million) and Moderna (around 100 million) pledged 1.3 billion doses of vaccines, to be delivered to low-income countries at no profit, and to middle-income countries at lower prices by the end of 2021, many of which will go via COVAX. They committed to produce more than 1 billion doses for 2022.
In addition to covering current vaccine needs, Europe has launched an initiative to boost manufacturing capacity in Africa and to improve access to vaccines, medicines and health technologies. The initiative, backed by €1 billion funding from the EU budget and European financial development institutions such as the European Investment Bank, will cover investments in infrastructure and production capacity, training and skills, supply chains management and the regulatory framework. Through this initiative, regional production hubs will be developed, covering the entire African continent.
Because COVID-19 has clearly demonstrated our interconnectivity and our interdependence, the European Commission – and all of the Member States – have also voiced agreement for the WHO-led Pandemic Treaty, which would boost global collaboration and preparedness.
Addressing this connectivity, and looking health protection in the long-term, we are committed to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which will positively affect health through policies like the EU Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy. Rising temperatures and the loss of biodiversity contribute to the rise and spread of potentially dangerous pathogens and we are already seeing diseases like malaria in the EU that were previously only found in more tropical climates. In addition, factors like air pollution exacerbate the spread of diseases like COVID-19.
Our work is of course far from over. EU-wide digital vaccination certificates are being rolled out, and we are grappling with the complexities of reopening Europe while much of the world is still seeing rising cases of COVID-19 and its variants, we are continuing research and actively supporting the production and equal distribution of vaccines and medicines across the globe.
Although we have not yet emerged from this crisis, I think that when we look back at this phenomenal period in human history, our achievements will seem equally phenomenal.